Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » House Rejects Effort to Curb NSA Surveillance

House Rejects Effort to Curb NSA Surveillance

4 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/nsa-phone-surveillance-limits

Guest


Guest

Each and every one that voted no should be removed from office imo... they have broken the oath and no longer uphold the constitution nor represent the citizens of the USA. Clapper even directly and willfully lied to congress... yet no charges have been pressed.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/17110423931/217-representatives-who-voted-to-keep-nsa-spying-all-your-data.shtml?_format=full

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Each and every one that voted no should be removed from office imo... they have broken the oath and no longer uphold the constitution nor represent the citizens of the USA. Clapper even directly and willfully lied to congress... yet no charges have been pressed.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/17110423931/217-representatives-who-voted-to-keep-nsa-spying-all-your-data.shtml?_format=full

I'll go even further - anyone holding office in Congress ought to be voted out, they have broken the faith with the American public on too many issues.

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Each and every one that voted no should be removed from office imo... they have broken the oath and no longer uphold the constitution nor represent the citizens of the USA. Clapper even directly and willfully lied to congress... yet no charges have been pressed.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/17110423931/217-representatives-who-voted-to-keep-nsa-spying-all-your-data.shtml?_format=full

I'll go even further - anyone holding office in Congress ought to be voted out, they have broken the faith with the American public on too many issues.

      You don't throw out an entire program that is designed to protect this nation but...you need to have adults in charge and adults supervising to avoid the mistakes that have been made...

Guest


Guest

Obama administration statement prior to vote. That's funny... I thght he promised an end to warrantless wiretaps?

"In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the president has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens.

"The administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate, including the president's meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, his public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Litt's speech at Brookings, and ODNI's decision to declassify and disclose publicly that the Administration filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.

"However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our intelligence community's counterterrorism tools.

"This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Obama administration statement prior to vote. That's funny... I thght he promised an end to warrantless wiretaps?

Warrantless wiretaps?

Words have meanings.

Guest


Guest

Yes... yes they do.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Yes... yes they do.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, you're backing away from the warrantless wiretapping allegation?

Cause that's not what they're up to, you know.

To be perfectly clear, I absolutely am NOT in any way supportive of what they're doing, but warrantless wiretaps it ain't.

Guest


Guest

What part is difficult for you to understand? I'll do what I can to help.

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections

The Wiretap Act requires the police to get a wiretap order whenever they want to "intercept" an "oral communication," an "electronic communication," or a "wire communication." Interception of those communications is commonly called electronic surveillance.

An oral communication is your typical face-to-face, in-person talking. A communication qualifies as an oral communication that is protected by the statute (and the Fourth Amendment) if it is uttered when you have a reasonable expectation that your conversation won't be recorded. So, if the police want to install a microphone or a "bug" in your house or office (or stick one outside of a closed phone booth, like in the Katz case), they have to get a wiretap order. The government may also attempt to use your own microphones against you — for example, by obtaining your phone company's cooperation to turn on your cell phone's microphone and eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

A wire communication is any voice communication that is transmitted, whether over the phone company's wires, a cellular network, or the Internet. You don't need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the statute to protect you, although radio broadcasts and other communications that can be received by the public are not protected. If the government wants to tap any of your phone calls — landline, cellphone, or Internet-based — it has to get a wiretap order.

An electronic communication is any transmitted communication that isn't a voice communication. So, that includes all of your non-voice Internet and cellular phone activities like email, instant messaging, texting and websurfing. It also covers faxes and messages sent with digital pagers. Like with wire communications, you don't need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your electronic communications for them to be protected by the statute.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:What part is difficult for you to understand? I'll do what I can to help.

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections

The Wiretap Act requires the police to get a wiretap order whenever they want to "intercept" an "oral communication," an "electronic communication," or a "wire communication." Interception of those communications is commonly called electronic surveillance.

An oral communication is your typical face-to-face, in-person talking. A communication qualifies as an oral communication that is protected by the statute (and the Fourth Amendment) if it is uttered when you have a reasonable expectation that your conversation won't be recorded. So, if the police want to install a microphone or a "bug" in your house or office (or stick one outside of a closed phone booth, like in the Katz case), they have to get a wiretap order. The government may also attempt to use your own microphones against you — for example, by obtaining your phone company's cooperation to turn on your cell phone's microphone and eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

A wire communication is any voice communication that is transmitted, whether over the phone company's wires, a cellular network, or the Internet. You don't need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the statute to protect you, although radio broadcasts and other communications that can be received by the public are not protected. If the government wants to tap any of your phone calls — landline, cellphone, or Internet-based — it has to get a wiretap order.

An electronic communication is any transmitted communication that isn't a voice communication. So, that includes all of your non-voice Internet and cellular phone activities like email, instant messaging, texting and websurfing. It also covers faxes and messages sent with digital pagers. Like with wire communications, you don't need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your electronic communications for them to be protected by the statute.

Yes, quite.

Thank you.

And again, that's not what they're doing.

Guest


Guest

Oooooookaaaay comrade.

Sal

Sal

metadata - get to know it.

Guest


Guest

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130424/19014922826/doj-helped-att-others-avoid-wiretap-act-promised-not-to-charge-them-if-they-helped-spy-people.shtml

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:metadata - get to know it.

The fourth amendment... get to know it.

Sal

Sal

OK, I'll try one more time ...

Think of the NSA as a giant Hoover vacuum cleaner.

It's sucks up all the metadata from the telecommunications companies and stores it away forever.

And, all this is apparently quite legal, scary as that may be.

That is what this bill was attempting to address.

Which is something quite different than warrantless wiretapping.

I know, I know ...

... I'm a commie for insisting words have specific meanings.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:OK, I'll try one more time ...

Think of the NSA as a giant Hoover vacuum cleaner.

It's sucks up all the metadata from the telecommunications companies and stores it away forever.

And, all this is apparently quite legal, scary as that may be.

That is what this bill was attempting to address.

Which is something quite different than warrantless wiretapping.

I know, I know ...

... I'm a commie for insisting words have specific meanings.

Very good comrade... you have absorbed the obama administration rhetoric and federal powers talking points completely.

Of course it wasn't very long ago that the entire operation and practice was denied in front of congress and to our faces.

But this time dear leader and our great benevolent govt are being forthright... right? Lol... you leftist asshats are easy.

There is much more than obscure meta data being gathered and even a cursory look at the wikileak makes that clear.

Guest


Guest

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/130703/edward-snowden-leaks

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:OK, I'll try one more time ...

Think of the NSA as a giant Hoover vacuum cleaner.

It's sucks up all the metadata from the telecommunications companies and stores it away forever.

And, all this is apparently quite legal, scary as that may be.

That is what this bill was attempting to address.

Which is something quite different than warrantless wiretapping.

I know, I know ...

... I'm a commie for insisting words have specific meanings.


You are wasting your time. No logic penetrates the skull of the off the grid Obama haters. It doesn't even matter that this whole deal didn't originate with Obama.

Guest


Guest

Sir Loin wrote:
Sal wrote:OK, I'll try one more time ...

Think of the NSA as a giant Hoover vacuum cleaner.

It's sucks up all the metadata from the telecommunications companies and stores it away forever.

And, all this is apparently quite legal, scary as that may be.

That is what this bill was attempting to address.

Which is something quite different than warrantless wiretapping.

I know, I know ...

... I'm a commie for insisting words have specific meanings.


You are wasting your time. No logic penetrates the skull of the off the grid Obama haters. It doesn't even matter that this whole deal didn't originate with Obama.


Actually it does matter... the patriot act vacated parts of the wiretap act and previous privacy protections. What that meant in practical terms was a nearly carte blanche reversal of many basic tenants of united states law... even so contradictory as to run counter to supreme court decisions such as katz v. us. You can just play snark and giggle with salinski if you choose... I take this very seriously. Even sal admitted he wasn't necessarily approving of the practice... are you ok with it?

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Even sal admitted he wasn't necessarily approving of the practice... are you ok with it?

Actually, I said I absolutely do NOT approve of it.

But, it's not warrantless wiretapping.

lol

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Even sal admitted he wasn't necessarily approving of the practice... are you ok with it?

Actually, I said I absolutely do NOT approve of it.

But, it's not warrantless wiretapping.

lol

I showed you the legal definition from the wiretap act to include electronic communication on the previous page.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:
Sir Loin wrote:
Sal wrote:OK, I'll try one more time ...

Think of the NSA as a giant Hoover vacuum cleaner.

It's sucks up all the metadata from the telecommunications companies and stores it away forever.

And, all this is apparently quite legal, scary as that may be.

That is what this bill was attempting to address.

Which is something quite different than warrantless wiretapping.

I know, I know ...

... I'm a commie for insisting words have specific meanings.


You are wasting your time.  No logic penetrates the skull of the off the grid Obama haters.  It doesn't even matter that this whole deal didn't originate with Obama.


Actually it does matter... the patriot act vacated parts of the wiretap act and previous privacy protections. What that meant in practical terms was a nearly carte blanche reversal of many basic tenants of united states law... even so contradictory as to run counter to supreme court decisions such as katz v. us. You can just play snark and giggle with salinski if you choose... I take this very seriously. Even sal admitted he wasn't necessarily approving of the practice... are you ok with it?


Grocery stores track my purchases to the point of giving me coupons for tampons because they know my wife is on her period.

That train left the station a long time ago, and it doesn't matter what I or you think about metadata and it's place in today's world.

Wanna bet they have your posts warehoused? Yet you continue to rant about shit you cannot change. Go for it. Free speech is a quaint notion long since eroded by zealots who disagree with what's being said. I support your right to be as irrelevant as a town crier in a hurricane.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:
I showed you the legal definition from the wiretap act to include electronic communication on the previous page.

metadata collection ...

... educate yourself.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
I showed you the legal definition from the wiretap act to include electronic communication on the previous page.

metadata collection ...

... educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

Extent of surveillance Alleged NSA internal slides included in the disclosures purported to show that the NSA could unilaterally access data and perform "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" with examples including email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP chats (such as Skype), file transfers, and social networking details. [2] Snowden summarized that "in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT [signals intelligence] databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want." [13] According to The Washington Post, the intelligence analysts search PRISM data using terms intended to identify suspicious communications of targets whom the analysts suspect with at least 51 percent confidence to not be U.S. citizens, but in the process, communication data of some U.S. citizens are also collected unintentionally. [1] Training materials for analysts tell them that while they should periodically report such accidental collection of non-foreign U.S. data, "it's nothing to worry about." [1]

According to The Guardian, NSA had access to chats and emails on Outlook.com, Skype, because Microsoft had “developed a surveillance capability to deal” with the interception of chats, and “[f]or Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, and Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption.” [34][35]

During a House Judiciary hearing on domestic spying on July 17, 2013 John C Inglis, the deputy director of the surveillance agency, told a member of the House judiciary committee that NSA analysts can perform "a second or third hop query" through its collections of telephone data and internet records in order to find connections to terrorist organizations. "Hops" refers to a technical term indicating connections between people. A three-hop query means that the NSA can look at data not only from a suspected terrorist, but from everyone that suspect communicated with, and then from everyone those people communicated with, and then from everyone all of those people communicated with. [36][37] NSA officials had said previously that data mining was limited to two hops, but Inglis suggested that the Foreign Intelligence Secret Court as allowed for data analysis extending “two or three hops”

Guest


Guest

This is interesting as well... particularly page five concerning domestic communications. Apparently if you exchange email with a person from another country you forfeit nsa privacy protections for a period of up to five years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » House Rejects Effort to Curb NSA Surveillance

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum